Tennis

[serghei]

Are you retarded?

2 pages ago, we detailed how it was 3-3 in slam finals (and 4-3 in favor of Nadal) during 2011-2015. I'd still ever so slightly favor Djokovic because he won on three surfaces as opposed to 2 for Nadal in this time frame.

2016-onwards - is post 30 a prime age for a tennis player too ?Federer won 3 slams post 30 and Sampras 1

Nadal won 8 (feasting on weak era) and Djokovic 14 (SUPER feasting on weak era).

It is 9-5 for Djokovic in slam wins (not slam h2h lol) during 2011-2015. In his prime years, he was very dominant also, not just in later career. You are very confused.

Post 30 is quite legitimate and important part of career. Take Messi, before 30 he is a loser at NT level. Post 30 he's the boss, and an Argies hero.

And if you want to converse more, drop the digs. I let it slide 2-3 times already.

 

[KingLeo10]

Haven't followed tennis much in the era of three heroes, but wonder why the era of likes of Sampras, Agassi, Becker and alike didn't spark such heated exchanges. Maybe these guys are really all very similar both in styles and records. I peronally like none of them. They all seemed boring to me from the get go. The 90s and early 00s era seemed most watchable. Many interesting players, even if none of them were considered "goats". Loved Ivanisevic smashing his rackets and cursing, Samprass with his uber powerfull flat shots and Agassi with swerwing topspin balls. Even watched some women tennis at the time. Stefi Graf had menacing back hand slice shot she used to terorize her oponents, especially that swiss girl, Hingis. The Federer, Nadal & Joko era seem flat boring and even those players themselves are all the same. Strong shooters without any personality whatsoever. Maybe i just haven't followed enough.

I personally rate Sampras and Agassi very highly.

The mistake people make in saying they "only" had 14 and 8 slams is that slams weren't as hyped by the media back then and AO wasn't even attended by many players (especially in the McEnroe, Borg, Lendl days).

I don't think anyone except for Fed can go toe to toe with prime Sampras on actual grass.

Agassi to me is the best returner ever and won the surface slam on distinct surfaces (when grass was grass and clay was clay and hard courts were fast).

 

[KingLeo10]

It is 9-5 for Djokovic in slam wins (not slam h2h lol) during 2011-2015. In his prime years, he was very dominant. You are very confused.

Post 30 is quite legitimate. Take Messi, before 30 is a loser at NT level. Post 30 he's the boss.

And it was 9-1 in slam wins pre 2011.

Post 30 is legitimate depending on the level of competition/context. The reason Messi gets lauded for his NT post 30 is because of the level (10 G + A) he brought to the 2022 WC and the competition he beat (Netherlands, Croatia, France) doing so.

I personally don't rate this Copa win he just had at all. I know none of Djokovic's wins came that easy but this is why context matters.

If Djokovic dominates Alcaraz and co in the next year, you have me proven wrong on his longevity.

My entire argument is that his longevity achievements rests on subpar opposition, after all.

 

[Gnidrologist]

Yeah, i always loved Agassi for how good he was at returning even most powerful serves. Also will always remember that match against belarussian Medevedev on RG, where he finally won that tournament and became one of few players that won them all. He was two sets downs and i think something like 2-4 or 2-5 in games in the third, but turned it around in typical Hollywood movie fashion. One of mine childhoods best memories. The match was, i think, in early to mid 00s.

 

[serghei]

And it was 9-1 in slam wins pre 2011.

Post 30 is legitimate depending on the level of competition/context. The reason Messi gets lauded for his NT post 30 is because of the level (10 G + A) he brought to the 2022 WC and the competition he beat (Netherlands, Croatia, France) doing so.

I personally don't rate this Copa win he just had at all. I know none of Djokovic's wins came that easy but this is why context matters.

If Djokovic dominates Alcaraz and co in the next year, you have me proven wrong on his longevity.

My entire argument is that his longevity achievements rests on subpar opposition, after all.

Yes. And this is the reason Nadal ultimately lost the war. He became subpar oppositon for Djokovic because he simply declined at a faster
rate than he did after 2011.

Your subpar opposition argument includes Nadal. If you look at it from a rational angle, it's the only explanation. And the cause of it is simply the more physical style of play of Nadal, damaging his body more in time and causing a faster decline.

 

[Messigician]

And if you want to converse more, drop the digs. I let it slide 2-3 times already.

Mature response

 

[KingLeo10]

Yes. And this is the reason Nadal ultimately lost the war. He became subpar oppositon for Djokovic because he simply declined at a faster
rate than he did after 2011.

Your subpar opposition argument includes Nadal.

Nadal won 8 post 2016 and Djokovic won 12

The slam H2H between them in this time frame is:

2-3

I don't think the era of feasting on shit players (where Djokovic feasted more) is the decisive factor MORE SO than their performances during 2005-2015 which had prime Federer, their own primes, prime Andy Murray, DelPo, Ferrer, Berdych etc.

 

[KingLeo10]

Actually, in hindsight, my apologies for losing my cool and the personal attack @serghei

Going to stop posting on this as I don't think we'll see eye to eye on it anyway.

 

[serghei]

Nadal won 8 post 2016 and Djokovic won 12

The slam H2H between them in this time frame is:

2-3

You're genuinely retarded if you think the era of feasting on shit players (where Djokovic feasted more) is the decisive factor MORE SO than their performances during 2005-2015 which had prime Federer, their own primes, prime Andy Murray, DelPo, Ferrer, Berdych etc.

I don't use the word retarded for non trolls often. But you've debating in bad faith and are a worthy candidate for it on this one.

You have few arguments mate. You have some, which I agreed to, but most important ones you just don't.

Here's another one, if the era post 2016-17 is shite, how come Nadal didn't clean up the field and challenged Djokovic as the king cleaner of a failed next-gen? Should have been easy in theory. Because Djokovic was much better. And even though the field seemed and maybe was weak for older Djokovic, for older Nadal it was still way too difficult.

Problem for Nadal was that he could only do it on clay and occasionally USO after 25-26 years old. His level off clay was not consistent enough. If you look at his career, he always came back to clay. To this date he is yet to defend a title he won off clay. A lot of it is down to his body failing him, but if you push your body to the max in your younger years, you pay the price in your later career. Fair is fair.

 

[serghei]

For me Nadal still has many unique things about him. The best one is that if any player would invite a rival on his playing terms to have a duel, he would beat all of them. He would ask them on clay at RG or Monte Carlo and he'd beat them.

 

[malvolio]

Has Djokovic finally run out of "orange juice"?

 

[serghei]

And for Alcaraz, inuries and the level of Sinner is gonna decide how great he is gonna be viewed as.

- Stay fit for long and become less of a crazy runner for impossible retrievals, I saw less muscle mass on him this year, which is a good sign for him that he thinks long term
- Dominate a top Sinner and build domination over serious opposition
- keep winning slams and racking up weeks at no1 and year end no1s
- start to beat next gens, top players at the time that are gonna be much younger than him

He has a lot to do. To rack up so many titles you have to keep playing great for 10-15 years straight.

If he wants to chase Djokovic he can't lose to him anymore in a big tournament, that is a given. Losing to very old players is a big no-no if you aim super high.

 

[CatalinR10]

Unvaccinated tennis superstar Novak Djokovic has completed tennis.


Wow.


@Messigician

 

[Rassvet]

stunned

 

[Horatio]

stunned

what happened